Historical Revisionism?

Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism?
From: Grab
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 06:18 AM

If it really is offensive in its current state, then by all means move it, but don't destroy it. If it's just the breasts then the argument falls down rather - art galleries would have some serious problems then! But if it's in the way the "natives" are portrayed, then fine, remove it.

That's not to say the fact of how the natives dressed and how they traded with whites is any different, it's merely being tactful. It would be pretty callous (and probably dangerous!) to paint a mural of black slaves looking like savages (in the style of many Victorian paintings) in the middle of Washington, for instance!

But that does rely on it really being offensive, and many ppl complaining about it. If it's just one militant group who are just looking for an excuse to piss on ppl, then screw'em.

Graham.

Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism?
From: Kim C
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 10:21 AM

This reminds me of a story. When I was a little kid, my grandmother lived next door to an old woman we always called Miss Jane. She was a widow and had no children except for a nephew who helped her out once in a while. She had a beautiful house. Anyway Miss Jane had gone to art school when she was a girl, and several of her paintings hung on the walls. After she died, and her belongings were sold at auction, my aunt bought several things: a dining table, chairs, a buffet, and one of the paintings.

It's a beautiful thing, an almost life-size depiction of a lovely nymph dancing on the water, with this diaphanous white garment enshrouding her. The story goes that when Miss Jane brought the painting home from art school, the nymph was nekkid! Miss Jane's mother had a FIT and said Jane you put some CLOTHES on that thing!

So she took a bottle of white shoe polish and painted on some clothes. :-)

I guess my question regarding the mural would be, did Native American women in that area go about topless? Because some did, and some didn't. If they didn't, then the mural is historically inaccurate, but could still survive as an example of artistic license. If they did, well, I don't guess anyone can gripe about it.

Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism?
From: GUEST,Claymore
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 02:34 PM

Damnit, if we're looking for balance, paint a penis on Christianity and show Commerce taking a crap, and lets get on with it. ( Hey, if it's a "good looking" native women , make it a "good looking woody").

Or paint Champlain with his sword in his hand...

Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism?
From: GUEST
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 02:44 PM

When my father was in the south Pacific during WWII many of the native women wore no garments on their upper bodies. Some good-meaning chaplain got a stack of T-shirts to give these women. The women happily wore the new garments after they had cut out holes in the shirts so that their breasts would not be confined.

Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism?
From: Kim C
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 03:36 PM

Doug, I did not answer your question about who are the victors. Let me see if I can say this where it makes sense... It's the winners who usually want to impose Their View of What Happened upon everyone else; and whether or not it's actually True, Their View becomes Fact after so long, and people don't like to have their long-held ideas challenged. I think that more and more modern writers and historians are doing research to go beyond some of those ingrained beliefs, but there are still people out there who think the earth is flat, so to speak.

The Losers usually have their own version of events too, but nobody wants to believe them, because after all, they Lost.

I guess that's where the revisionists come in.

Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism?
From: DougR
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 06:22 PM

Thanks, Kim. Good explanation. DougR

Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism?
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 17 Apr 01 - 07:13 PM

I suppose that bistorical revisionism is probably not the best choice of words. Rather some kind of commentary on political correctness. It is interesting to note that a female first nations artist suggested that the murals stay up with some kind of plaque put up with an explanation, whch I think is the best solution.

I had heard that other art which had been a source of controversy (and similarly found offensive to natives) in Eastern Canada had been removed. The example cited in the local paper was a statue of Champlain and a kneeling native, which sounds suspiciously like one mentioned above, so maybe it hasnt been taken down, or maybe theres more than one.

I dont know about Kim Cs comment above, it would seem now that in modern and (hopefully) enlightened society you do get the losers point of view, isnt that what this thread is all about?

Its hard to imagine any murals painted in the 1930's, that wouldnt offend somebody in this age in one sense or another, for instance I remember looking at a MacMillan Bloedel (lumber company) annual report cover from 1964 showing a clearcut valley, which you would certainly not see today, but then it meant money.

THis reminds me of the story of Rockefeller commissioning the famous socialist mexican artist Diego Rivera to paint a mural in Rockefeller center. He was given complete artistic license. Of course, he painted in a Lenin's face and when asked, refused to remove it, rather he ended up adding a picture of Rockefeller in an unflattering way, with a cigar and champagne glass - the mural was covered up, he was paid his full price. The mural was then taken down, or painted over. Rivera did have his revenge of sorts, he later repainted the mural in Mexico City.

Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism?
From: MarkS
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 12:23 AM

Can't help but wonder if 100 years from now, our future relatives will look back on PC with the same sense of amusement we use to look at some Victorian norms today.

Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism?
From: GUEST,Kim C, who deleted cookie
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 10:28 AM

We do nowadays get more of the losers' POV on historical events but it's still sometimes a hard row to hoe. It's only been recently that the Custer Battlefield had its name changed to the Little Bighorn Battlefield. This is sort of a funny thing, though, because Custer was the loser in this instance and still got the field named after him. In the long run, though, the US Army was the victor, and many of our aboriginal people in the USA are still struggling to get their story told.

Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism?
From: MMario
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 10:36 AM

Kim - was the battlefield actually called "Custer" ?- I have never heard that. I grew up knowing it as "Little Bighorn" - and am very surprised that it is/was known by any other name. We visited it back in '63 - though I have to admit I have no idea what it was called officially.

Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism?
From: Kim C
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 11:51 AM

Until 1991 the official Park Service name was Custer Battlefield National Monument, but of course everybody's always called it the Little Bighorn, even before there was a Park Service. So the change makes sense to me. Custer's supporters say it diminishes his role in the battle--- but hey, he got royally whoooooped, didn't he?

Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism?
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 12:06 PM

Kind of ironic, ain't it? He lost the battle, and they're worried about DIMINISHING his role. How can it get any more diminished?

Alex

Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism?
From: Kim C
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 01:11 PM

Beats me. I never liked him anyhow.

Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism?
From: kendall
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 01:59 PM

The right name for the Little Bighorn is The Greasy grass. Doesnt sound glorious enough for American history. Kim, the human female bosom is the most beautiful form in all of nature. A pox on those missionary dorks. There is a bill in our legislature to forbid women from breast feeding in public.Remind me to go to Augusta and kick a few asses.

When the white man came to this land, there was no taxation, the women did all the work, the men hunted and fished all the time, there were no prisons, no cops and we thought we could improve on that!

Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism?
From: Kim C
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 02:35 PM

No breastfeeding in public, huh? What do they think those things are FOR, anyway? (It ain't just so mens can have somethin to ogle.) Do they think babies have always nursed on FORMULA out of a f*****g bottle fercryinoutloud? I don't understand why you can walk into any market and see a magazine cover with a half-naked woman appearing to remove what little clothes she's wearing, and they're worried about breastfeeding! Most women put a blanket over their shoulder so you can't see nothin nohow. JEEZ-o-pete!

Are we to pretend now that breasts were never for feeding infants? That's revisionism if EVER I heard it.

Give em hell, Kendall.

Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism?
From: mousethief
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 03:54 PM

What do they think those things are FOR, anyway? (It ain't just so mens can have somethin to ogle.)

Well, this must be a rhetorical question, since you shot down my answer almost as soon as you'd asked the question.

Alex

Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism?
From: Kim C
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 05:18 PM

Who's ever seen the movie Ride With the Devil?

Jewel is nursing the baby and she says to the love interest, How long are you gonna stare?

Long as I can, he says.

Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism?
From: Jarlo
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 06:16 PM

Here in Texas, there was a bronze plaque on the Supreme Court building which featured a Confederate flag and a quote from Robert E. Lee praising Texas soldiers. Amid great controversy, it was moved to a war memorial on the Capitol lawn. This failed to satisfy both of the factions which were arguing about it, which probably means it was the right thing to do.

I've always looked upon the Confederate flag as a comforting local symbol. I think of it as the standard of brave soldiers defending their homes and families. But, some of my friends and neighbors remember it as a symbol of oppression. Sometimes it's just time to move on from the past and into a better future together. Removing it as an official symbol on a public building is hardly historical revisionism, just common decency toward our fellow citizens. We move other things into museums when their usefulness ends, why not a mural?

BTW, surely nobody thinks that a 1930's mural accurately depicts 19th century European/Indian relations!

Subject: RE: Historical Revisionism?
From: Wotcha
Date: 18 Apr 01 - 11:35 PM

I wonder if the Canadians have stronger Moral Rights for artists ... hope they don't disparage the artist who painted the thing. Under some copyright regimes, placing a painting in a lesser environment could impugn the artist's work (destruction, even under US law, is not an option). Is the artist still alive?
Cheers,
Brian